Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2015 17:15:50 GMT -5
I thought that after fees and what not, WWE only took in $10 per PPV sale? I read that somewhere, at least. Even then, that's more money than they bring in per network subscription because of having to pay for servers and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Jun 17, 2015 17:43:13 GMT -5
I thought that after fees and what not, WWE only took in $10 per PPV sale? I read that somewhere, at least. I thought it was a little over 20 Yeah, I have no idea. Only thing I do know that PPV providers take a huge chunk, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jun 17, 2015 18:29:01 GMT -5
The industry standard for PPVs is: - 10% goes to the broadcaster
- 45% goes to the cable company
- 45% goes to the promoter
I would consider it reasonable to assume WWE operated under a similar deal, so if WWE sells a PPV for $60 they keep $27. Factor in things like higher prices for Mania and for HD feeds, they would get a lot more than $10-$20 per PPV sale. I have also read the $10 per sale figure bandied about, but that could likely be the pure profit they have left after deducting the expenses involved with running the show itself. The Network isn't even self-sufficient yet, so those expenses are coming out of the company's other revenue streams, which is one reason how a show like Mania can have a high gross but still lose money. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jun 17, 2015 21:35:57 GMT -5
Probably been brought up before, and I'm sure there's some holes in the logic, but why not offer, instead of a true a la carte system, make only the live specials available for one-time purchase viewing, but make that purchase $25. People will still do it, even with the higher price tag (after all, we're still seeing actual PPV buys too) just to avoid the "hassle" of one more subscription to something.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Jun 17, 2015 23:21:55 GMT -5
If they do have to go back to charging more, I look forward to never hearing them brag about $9.99 ever again.
|
|
|
|
Post by RadcapRadsley on Jun 18, 2015 0:03:21 GMT -5
Hopefully this leads to a cost cutting decision to stop bringing back all the nostalgia acts from the Attitude Era. People who stopped watched wrestling and only show up to WM are not gonna come back again cause AE get on the card. If anything ever brings them back to the Product it will be a really good WM with solid matches which the current talent on the roster is capable of delivering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jun 18, 2015 0:12:27 GMT -5
Hopefully this leads to a cost cutting decision to stop bringing back all the nostalgia acts from the Attitude Era. People who stopped watched wrestling and only show up to WM are not gonna come back again cause AE get on the card. If anything ever brings them back to the Product it will be a really good WM with solid matches which the current talent on the roster is capable of delivering. Given how backwards they run things it will probably mean a culling of the less-used members of the main and NXT rosters to accommodate more nostalgia appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain & Diet on Jun 18, 2015 0:52:55 GMT -5
I've looked around Netflix plenty. Amadeus wasn't my thing when it came out. I found it to be self-indulgent. Who was being indulged? Everyone portrayed has been long dead! Regardless, there's 10,000 titles with many, many of them quality. A quick glance: Fargo The Conformist Silver Linings Playbook Hoop Dreams Django Unchained Blue Velvet Heavenly Creatures Inglorious Bastards The Big Lebowski The Exorcist Jerry Maguire Glengarry Glen Ross Annie Hall This Is Spinal Tap Wet Hot American Summer Hot Fuzz The Last Waltz The Bicycle Theif Dead Man Walking Trainspotting There, 20 movies. All better than Sharknado 2. Yeah but I've seen all of those! Oh. Coffee's for closers. |
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Jun 18, 2015 2:04:38 GMT -5
The industry standard for PPVs is: - 10% goes to the broadcaster
- 45% goes to the cable company
- 45% goes to the promoter
I would consider it reasonable to assume WWE operated under a similar deal, so if WWE sells a PPV for $60 they keep $27. Factor in things like higher prices for Mania and for HD feeds, they would get a lot more than $10-$20 per PPV sale. I have also read the $10 per sale figure bandied about, but that could likely be the pure profit they have left after deducting the expenses involved with running the show itself. The Network isn't even self-sufficient yet, so those expenses are coming out of the company's other revenue streams, which is one reason how a show like Mania can have a high gross but still lose money. Actually the 10-20 number is pretty accurate. Right off their own Q1 P&L (available at 2015 WWE P&L) they pulled in 18.44 per buy and that's also buffed up due to the higher purchase cost of WM in that quarter. If anyone wants to, go to that link and click on any of the linked figures on the right under 2015 q1 and it will bring the comprehensive profit and loss document. Bottom line is this. We can speculate on what looking at WM alone in a bubble with no network dollars counted towards it means or what WWE might react and do. Or you can look at it as WWE's biggest net profit quarter since Q2 of 2012 means. I mean if I was big Dave, I sure know what my headline would be. Also where was WWE at internationally this year for 3 events where they ripped people off for an average of 176 bucks a ticket..... |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jun 18, 2015 2:20:52 GMT -5
Hopefully this leads to a cost cutting decision to stop bringing back all the nostalgia acts from the Attitude Era. People who stopped watched wrestling and only show up to WM are not gonna come back again cause AE get on the card. If anything ever brings them back to the Product it will be a really good WM with solid matches which the current talent on the roster is capable of delivering. Given how backwards they run things it will probably mean a culling of the less-used members of the main and NXT rosters to accommodate more nostalgia appearances. And a good chunk of people will accept it as gospel that "if you got cut to accommodate The Rock's paycheck, then you weren't any good and have no business being a pro wrestler". |
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,331 
|
Post by chazraps on Jun 18, 2015 3:23:08 GMT -5
The industry standard for PPVs is: - 10% goes to the broadcaster
- 45% goes to the cable company
- 45% goes to the promoter
Source? |
|
mrwood
Mike the Goon
Posts: 45
|
Post by mrwood on Jun 18, 2015 4:13:19 GMT -5
I've not read through the whole thread but has no one pointed out how whilst Wrestlemania may have lost money, the constant influx of subscribers due to the network throughout the year means that the other big 4 and B shows make way, way more than they have in the past.
Isn't it a case that rather than making the majority of their money through Wrestlmania ppv buys that money is just more evenly distributed throughout the year?
|
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Jun 18, 2015 4:43:29 GMT -5
Vince probably gave Stephanie a $2M PPV bonus Which is silly. And I wonder, did he give himself a bonus? |
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,802
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jun 18, 2015 6:36:06 GMT -5
I've not read through the whole thread but has no one pointed out how whilst Wrestlemania may have lost money, the constant influx of subscribers due to the network throughout the year means that the other big 4 and B shows make way, way more than they have in the past. Isn't it a case that rather than making the majority of their money through Wrestlmania ppv buys that money is just more evenly distributed throughout the year? It really is just speculation. For all we know WWE could have expected this. No one knows at this point as WWE hasn't said anything. |
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Workin On My Night Cheese on Jun 18, 2015 6:40:29 GMT -5
I've not read through the whole thread but has no one pointed out how whilst Wrestlemania may have lost money, the constant influx of subscribers due to the network throughout the year means that the other big 4 and B shows make way, way more than they have in the past. Isn't it a case that rather than making the majority of their money through Wrestlmania ppv buys that money is just more evenly distributed throughout the year? It really is just speculation. For all we know WWE could have expected this. No one knows at this point as WWE hasn't said anything. And I don't think they will for a while. "We made a loss on our biggest event for the first time in the over three decades it has existed"... That'll reassure those shareholders. |
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,802
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jun 18, 2015 7:17:59 GMT -5
It really is just speculation. For all we know WWE could have expected this. No one knows at this point as WWE hasn't said anything. And I don't think they will for a while. "We made a loss on our biggest event for the first time in the over three decades it has existed"... That'll reassure those shareholders. I'm wondering if they will come out and show that while that was a loss, it was expected but the revenue streams across the board aside from that are up. I've worked in business long enough to see how financial data can easily be spun and investors, for the most part, are relatively easy to pacify. I have no doubt that they never expected to lose money on this but I am interested to see how they play it. I also wonder if some heads will roll internally because of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jun 18, 2015 13:43:31 GMT -5
The industry standard for PPVs is: - 10% goes to the broadcaster
- 45% goes to the cable company
- 45% goes to the promoter
Source? I remember it from a previous thread on here. Just done a search and the only thing I've turned up is this article, whioh has a distributor-operator-promoter split of 7.5%-50%-42.5%. Of course, it's written from the perspective of boxing, but gives you a thorough breakdown of how PPV works in general. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain & Diet on Jun 18, 2015 21:53:20 GMT -5
I've not read through the whole thread but has no one pointed out how whilst Wrestlemania may have lost money, the constant influx of subscribers due to the network throughout the year means that the other big 4 and B shows make way, way more than they have in the past. Isn't it a case that rather than making the majority of their money through Wrestlmania ppv buys that money is just more evenly distributed throughout the year? Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Plus, it'll be interesting to see if merchandise sales are up and if they can tie that to increased advertising on the Network. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 22:02:47 GMT -5
Probably been brought up before, and I'm sure there's some holes in the logic, but why not offer, instead of a true a la carte system, make only the live specials available for one-time purchase viewing, but make that purchase $25. People will still do it, even with the higher price tag (after all, we're still seeing actual PPV buys too) just to avoid the "hassle" of one more subscription to something. My understand is if they sell them as a stand only offering they have to do so at the same price their PPV providers charge, so in the case of Wrestlemania, they'd have to charge $55 or $65 dollars, $45 or $55 for the rest. That is why they are free on WWE Network, which cost $9.99. Using that loophole angered Dish, Direct and AT&T enough to all drop WWE despite PPVs still selling well, especially in location that Dish and Direct are the top providers. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jun 18, 2015 23:53:28 GMT -5
In that case, go out on a limb and offer the PPVs as standalones for the same price as actual PPVs, while still offering it all under the $9.99 subscription. We've already seen that there are people who, even with the sub available, are still ordering the actual PPVs (and not just those for whom the sub is regionally or otherwise unavailable).
|
|
